Weymouth College principal Liz Myles has been suspended — around six months after FE Commissioner Dr David Collins identified “significant weaknesses” in leadership.
The reason for the suspension has not been disclosed.
Ms Myles (pictured), an Ofsted associate inspector of more than 20 years, took up the principal post two years ago.
A statement issued by the 7,000-learner college said: “We have no further comment other than to confirm that Liz Myles has been suspended from her post, pending an investigation.
“To ensure we maintain the integrity of the investigation, no further information can be provided at this time.”
The college was inspected by the education watchdog in June last year and recorded its second consecutive grade three result, with leadership and management as good — it even singled out Ms Myles for her “good leadership”.
However, Dr Collins visited in March after the Skills Funding Agency assessed its finances as inadequate and recommended, among other things, that “the principal should engage a ‘peer mentor’ with a good financial track record to assist her in dealing with the college’s present financial situation”.
Then-Skills Minister Matthew Hancock, who told the college that Dr Collins had “identified significant weaknesses in the capacity and capability of the existing governance and leadership,” demanded “robust action that will deliver financial recovery”.
Meanwhile Norton Radstock College has announced plans to merge with City of Bath College.
Norton Radstock was visited in August by Dr Collins, who said the 4,700-learner college — rated by Ofsted last year as inadequate, including for leadership and management — needed to operate “within a larger partnership”.
Henry Logan, acting principal at Norton Radstock from this month (December), said: “I believe this is a positive outcome for the college, its staff and students. It will bring financial security and secure FE for the district.”
The two colleges, which are nearly 10 miles apart, are due to present the final merger proposal to the City of Bath governing body in February, with formal merger expected before the summer.
The 5,129-learner City of Bath College was graded as good by Ofsted last year. Its chair, Carole Stott MBE, said: “We are well placed to deliver a local solution to meet the needs of students, employers and communities.”
A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills spokesperson said Dr Collins would return to Norton Radstock after the merger to review progress.
The chief executive of a two-college federation has been told his position has been made “redundant” with the break-up of the organisation after just over 12 months.
Mike Hopkins stepped down as principal of Middlesbrough College to became chief executive of the newly-formed federation of Middlesbrough and Gateshead colleges in September last year.
However, two months ago the board agreed to disband the organisation.
In a joint statement Gateshead chair Robin Mackie and Middlesbrough chair Bob Brady said: “Following the decision to dissolve the federation, the position of chief executive is now redundant and Mike Hopkins has been released from his contract.
“We recognise Mike’s contribution in developing and launching the federation and wish him every success in the future.”
Mr Hopkins will also step down from his role as chair of the Principals’ Professional Council (PPC) this month (December).
Nick Lewis, PPC general secretary, said: “PPC has been very fortunate to have benefited from Mike’s energy and his experience of FE and we wish him the best for the future.”
Colleges should form closer ties with schools to encourage more young people into apprenticeships, Ofsted FE and skills director Lorna Fitzjohn has told MPs.
She gave evidence on Wednesday (November 26) to the Education Select Committee in Portcullis House, Westminster, that focused on how the number and quality of apprenticeships for 16 to 19-year-olds could be improved.
She said poor careers advice at schools, which tended to encourage learners to take A-levels and higher education degrees, was one of the main reasons that apprenticeship starts in the age group had “flatlined”.
She said colleges could do more to help schools see the benefits of vocational training and offer students an alternative to traditional academic routes through developing closer working ties.
She suggested “clustering schools and colleges together so that you haven’t got that at 14 or 16 where you go up one route and thereby you stay [away] from the other route”.
“If you bring a variety of establishments together… young people can perhaps even carry out a combined programme and move between organisations,” she said.
“You see those systems in Switzerland and Germany and it’s maybe something we ought to have here.”
Her comments reflected the suggestion made late last month by Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw in a speech to the Confederation of British Industry, in Coventry, where he said schools and colleges would benefit from forming local “clusters”.
Lorna Fitzjohn
Ms Fitzjohn also told MPs that local enterprise partnerships were “beginning” to play a more proactive role in co-ordinating apprenticeships.
But, she said: “I don’t think they are as interested necessarily in the lower level aspects of the workforce. They haven’t always been involved in FE and skills.”
Ms Fitzjohn commented on plans announced two weeks ago by Deputy Prime Minster Nick Clegg to launch a UCas-style “fully-comprehensive national database” of post-16 skills and employer led-courses and opportunities in England from September.
She said: “I think it will help but apprentices look for apprenticeships locally because they are more likely to need family support.”
UCas chief executive Mary Curnock Cook responded to Mr Clegg’s announcement by pointing out that UCas Progress, its service for post-16 choices, had already expanded to offer “national coverage of vocational and academic courses in England and Wales”.
And when pressed after the hearing on whether she thought a UCas-style system could work for apprenticeships, Ms Fitzjohn said: “UCas would need to run a more local-based system than it does for universities.”
Head of skills and policy campaigns at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Katerina Rudiger, said there was a “real issue where schools… see apprentices as something for people who don’t succeed”.
She added: “If young people don’t know about apprenticeships and don’t know how to apply for them, then obviously we won’t be making any progress.”
Education Secretary Nicky Morgan is due to give evidence at the committee next meeting, on Wednesday (December 3), focussing on exams for 15 to 19-year-olds in England.
Kendal College has opened an animal rescue and rehabilitation centre staffed by tutors and learners — and one of the first patients was Bonzo the bearded dragon lizard, who came in for an X-ray.
Bonzo
Experienced vets run the centre and teach level two animal care and level three animal management learners who also work there.
Lisbeth Tucker, resident vet and tutor at the Cumbria college, said: “Kendal now finds itself in the unique position of being able to provide the highest quality care to wildlife, as well as giving students a practical animal care experience.”
The centre has an intensive care room and facilities to house animals referred by veterinary surgeries, the RSPCA and other charities.
Main Pic: From left: Lisbeth Tucker, vet and tutor, Louise Clapham, animal care technician, Zaeed Mohammed, animal care tutor, Sue Jamieson, animal care tutor, Claire Harris, animal care technician, and Mhairi Helme, vet and tutor
Much has been made of the first annual report of FE Commissioner Dr David Collins.
He warned colleges against dropping expensive subjects, such as science and engineering, in straitened times for the sector.
But Dr Collins also laid out his findings, based on his visits to 11 colleges, on board chairs, governors, principals and clerks.
Dr Sue Pember (pictured), former head of FE and skills investment at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, looks deeper at these issues and offers advice.
“Although Dr Collins’s annual report only covers 6 per cent of the sector, it needs to be read by all of us in FE,” she told FE Week.
“It rightly draws attention to issues around governance, including the role of the clerk, and they accord with the recommendations in the Association of Colleges’ Governors’ Council-led Creating Excellence in Governance.
“It is really important for governors working with their senior leadership team to be clear on what each is there to do.
“Boards must be given the tools to govern and they will find that job difficult without senior staff help.
“Roles need to clear and written down and to support this understanding the new draft code of governance which will come out for consultation soon will make address a number of these issues.”
The principal
The principal must be responsible for the executive management of the college and its day-to-day direction. S/he should not seek to determine matters reserved for the governing board but should ensure the board business runs smoothly by providing timely advice. The specific responsibilities of the principal in relation to board business must include:
— ensuring that board decisions are implemented through the college’s management structure; advising the board as required; and as the ‘accountable officer’, informing the board if any actions would be incompatible with the financial memorandum. If the governing body nevertheless decides to proceed, then the principal must inform the chief executive of the relevant funding body
— responsible for prompt and coherent management reports to governors, including the emergence of major new risks and opportunities; and for facilitating appropriate opportunities for governors to see the college’s front-line activities and meet staff at all levels.
The chair
— is responsible for the leadership of the board and ultimately to the stakeholders for its effectiveness
— should take particular care that the board observes the values of college governance
— as a non-executive, should not be drawn into day-to-day management but should be able to challenge
— should promote effective and efficient operation of the board, ensuring that members work together effectively
— should ensure there is effective communication between the board and all its stakeholders, both internal and external
— is responsible for setting the agenda of the board, ensuring that adequate time is available for discussion of agenda items, particularly strategic items, and promoting a culture of openness and debate, facilitating the contribution of all members
— supported by the clerk, should ensure the necessary resources and opportunities are provided for developing and updating the knowledge and capabilities of governors both individually and collectively
— working with the clerk, principal and SLT should ensure governors receive timely papers and information in a form that facilitates their understanding and participation in the discussion.
The clerk
The board must safeguard the clerk’s ability to carry out his/her responsibilities and ensure the clerk has adequate time and available resources so that the clerk is able to:
— be solely responsible to the board and have a direct reporting link to its chair for the conduct of board business
— inform the board if s/he believes that any proposed action would exceed its powers or be contrary to legislation or the financial memorandum
— work closely with the chair and principal to advance business, keeping the principal fully informed on any matter relating to board business. If this is not possible because of inappropriate conduct by one of the parties involved, the board must take action.
Individual governors
— should be committed and contribute pro-actively to meetings, and be seen as college advocates. They should bring knowledge and expertise to the table and support and challenge the executive by ensuring student interest is first
— should be aware of the status and role of the corporation as an exempt charity and the status of the governors as charity
— should act with honesty, frankness and objectivity, taking decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias
— are responsible for identifying gaps in their individual skills and knowledge and undertaking further training and development as appropriate.
The principal of a troubled London college has conceded there were “no excuses” for the poor results in an Ofsted monitoring report that found insufficient progress had been made in its efforts to bounce back from an inadequate grading.
The Ofsted monitoring visit found Lewisham and Southwark College, which late last month had ministerial permission to rename from Lesoco, had made “insufficient progress” in each of the areas looked at.
The areas were improving teaching and learning, learner attendance, tutorial arrangements, teaching support and maths and English provision.
It was Ofsted’s fourth return to the college since the initial inspection in November last year.
On previous monitoring visits inspectors noted the college had made “reasonable progress” with maths and English but had struggled elsewhere. And the latest report said improvements had “slowed”.
Interim principal Ioan Morgan (pictured): “No excuses, this is not good enough. We will have the college in better shape for its new principal and on a much more secure financial footing. The bottom line, however, is that this is a long haul recovery.
“Impact from our new systems will be seen in improved learner performance in this academic year when new data is available resulting from improved teaching and learning.”
FE Commissioner David Collins visited the college in late January and a spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said he “identified some weaknesses in the governance and leadership of the college”.
Then-principal Maxine Room later stepped down and was replaced by Mr Morgan and a revisit to the college by the commissioner in July resulted in praise for the new leadership.
However, a BIS spokesperson told FE Week: “The commissioner and his advisers continue to monitor and review progress at the college and are challenging the governing body and senior executive to take action to increase the pace and quality of improvement.
“The commissioner is set to conduct a stocktake assessment of the college in early 2015 to formally review progress against his recommendations, advising Ministers and the chief executive of the funding agencies on progress. If there has been insufficient progress, further action will be taken.”
Ofsted monitoring visits occur around every three months after an inadequate inspection result, until the full re-inspection, which takes place around 15 months after the initial inspection.
The college was formed by a merger between Lewisham College and Southwark College in 2012 and was rebranded as Lesoco in 2013 at a cost of £290,000, as exclusively revealed by FE Week two months ago.
And Skills Minister Nick Boles has now given the college permission to ditch Lesoco and officially call itself Lewisham and Southwark College.
Mr Morgan said: “We are very pleased that common sense has prevailed.”
He added the name change would “enable us to get on with the important work that lies ahead with the assurance that we will still be recognised as the local college serving the two boroughs and surrounding parts of London”.
An East London council has given out a £2m loan to “help safeguard” the future of its local college.
Newham Council cabinet approved the cash for Newham College of Further Education, which it said had been put in an “extremely difficult position” by government cuts.
The college described the council’s support, agreed at a meeting on Thursday, November 20, as “invaluable”. The loan will be repayable over two years at an unspecified “commercial” rate.
Newham councillor Lester Hudson, cabinet member for finance, regeneration and planning, said: “Newham College has been placed in an extremely difficult situation by Government cuts to its funding, which has seen almost £5m cut from its budget.”
He added: “As a council we want to ensure that changes to funding for FE do not harm our education establishments and that they can continue to meet the needs of the borough’s young people.
“This is why the council’s cabinet approved a loan of £2m to help safeguard the college’s future.”
He said the loan would “ensure the college can aid in the skills development of the borough’s young people and adults, as well as supporting the council’s aim to provide tailored programmes to help people into work”.
Around 60 per cent of the college’s 20,750 students are Newham residents.
Principal Di Gowland said: “The council’s support is invaluable given the level of cuts throughout the FE sector and the impact these will have on the Newham community.”
The loan proposal was initially put to a full council meeting on September 29 as part of the Mid-Year Review of the 2014/15 Budget and Overall Financial Position. A ruling was then delegated to the cabinet.
Ms Gowland said: “The borough has one of the most diverse populations in the country and the wide range of education and training offered by Newham College is giving our residents the skills they need to boost the borough’s economy.
“This short term loan will ensure we are positively engaged in developing and delivering the training needed to support the local skills and employment agenda.”
An Association of Colleges (AoC) spokesperson said: “There have been many loans, grants and in-kind contributions from councils to colleges over the last 20 years, which reflects their joint work in meeting community need and fostering local economic growth.”
However, she said AoC was unable to give specific examples of such agreements and could not offer advice on seeking local authority loans.
A report from the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) which warned workforce skills and skills provision must be increased to boost productivity, wages and social mobility has been branded “disappointing” by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP).
The report, Growth through people, published on Monday (November 24), outlined five priorities for action over the next 20 years, including giving employers leadership in the skills and apprenticeship system, measuring job outcomes as success not just qualifications, increasing workplace productivity, more opportunities to earn and learn, and stronger links between employers and education.
A spokesperson for AELP said it welcomed the report’s “focus on skills as a key driver of sustainable economic recovery” and its calls for closer working between employers and training providers of all types.
“However it is disappointing that the paper says ‘FE colleges should be supported to work with employers’,” he said.
“This institutional view of the sector does not reflect that the best provision of technical skills often involves partnerships between employers, colleges and independent training providers.”
Stewart Segal, AELP chief executive, added: “The partnership approach to skills with employers having the choice to work with training providers of all types is the only way forward.”
But, he added: “There is much in the UKCES report that we can support. The focus on employer engagement, the role of skills in driving productivity and the focus on earning and learning are all approaches AELP has promoted over many years.
“We need to drive the apprenticeship programme and we need a period of long term stability not fundamental change proposed by the government.”
And Mr Segal warned “employer leadership” should not necessarily mean complete control over funding. “Employers want to retain the choice of direct funding or working with their chosen training provider and we should retain this option in the system,” he said.
David Hughes, chief executive of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, described the report as “important” — pointing to a “perfect storm” of widening skills gaps, high unemployment an aging population and a reduction in employer investment in training over the last five years.
“There are solutions to this. The UKCES itself is a good start in establishing the national and local partnership approach between Government, employers, providers and workers,” he said.
Martin Doel, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “Employers must work together with the education community to create meaningful qualifications for today’s fast-changing global skills economy.”
Reading the preamble to Ofsted’s Better inspection for all consultation suggests a degree of reflection from Chief Inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw — not only the title, but the narrative and rhetoric.
He hints at three main weaknesses (or ‘areas for improvement’?) in the inspection methodology that need addressing: consistency, better inspector training and more practitioners becoming involved as inspectors.
The consultation’s questions cover quite different areas, though. They mainly relate to developing a common inspection framework (CIF) — across maintained schools, academies, FE and skills, early years settings and some independent schools. Given that disparity, here are some ideas about those three issues from Sir Michael.
Consistency
At first glance, this new approach could potentially enhance consistency to a degree. It’s been welcomed as providing more equitable comparisons between, say, school sixth forms and sixth form or GFE colleges.
However, critics of a lack of consistency in inspection haven’t focussed on the framework’s validity as an evaluation tool, so much as its application — and the resulting reliability of inspectors’ judgements.
Our research and discussions with providers have uncovered a feeling that Ofsted may have ended the contracts with CfBT, Serco and Tribal because, in part, they played a significant role in perceptions among providers of an ‘element of luck’ in inspections.
Sir Michael will therefore take this aspect back in-house, reportedly to improve consistency. The consultation’s Q11 focuses specifically on reliability of judgements and evidence-gathering, suggesting that this is a concern for Ofsted.
Is this really where the problem lies, though?
Perhaps the reductionist nature of the inspection process is the real heart of the consistency issue. Ultimately, just one of four broad grades is used — although talk of, for example, a “strong grade two” often pervades inspections, somewhat hedging Ofsted’s bets.
The brave statement that inspectors will use “all the available evidence” to arrive at judgements appears in the consultation, alongside a restatement of the current grading headings.
But the complexity of what is under scrutiny isn’t amenable to such simplistic categorisation. Moreover, how any valid intelligence and lessons from provider complaints are used to improve the reliability of inspection judgements is not clear. The number of complaints, and the fact that very few are upheld, are both made public. Yet little information is available about the nature of the complaints, the significance of any resulting changes and how all of that informs improvements to inspection.
Although some complaints will come from providers who are essentially ‘in denial’ of bad news, others may have some degree of merit — and a few are sufficient to warrant being upheld. Those final two categories contain food for thought and action by Ofsted.
Shouldn’t the reflective development of a standard framework across most of the education system incorporate a proper analysis of the ‘free consultancy’ that complaints provide? After all, the complaints procedure is itself already generic across Ofsted.
There’s also the issue that, if providers from the FE sector (or indeed, elsewhere) do not feel a revised ‘universal’ CIF is appropriate for inspecting their work, then complaints about the inappropriateness of judgements made using it will increase.
Ofsted has re-engaged with improvement for some time; it asks for advice on how it inspects. The consultation’s introduction indicates that future inspections will encourage “professional dialogue about the key issues, strengths and weaknesses that are most relevant to the individual school or further education and skills provider”.
In some settings, linking Ofsted to weaker providers has been welcomed — as have proposals envisaging more frequent inspections for good or outstanding providers.
Equating inspections with ‘professional dialogue’, while coupling them with the re-introduction of the word ‘weaknesses’ is a somewhat piquant idea, however.
A consultation question ‘that might have been’, here, would run: “How can providers work more closely and effectively with Ofsted to ensure the best degree of consistency and reliability in its judgements, while also maintaining proper independence and rigour?”
Better-trained inspectors
Ofsted already has a significant and demanding training programme for inspectors, whether full-time or part-time. To suggest more may be impractical and possibly even counter-productive. But better training, however — more closely reacting to matters like achieving reliable and consistent judgements, or using evidence with greater insight and evaluative care — is neither impossible nor a trivial as a goal.
The implications of getting these judgements wrong are significant for providers and the individuals. Change is imperative.
Currently, training is varied and includes shadowing, regular updates and a requirement to keep up-to-date by undertaking several inspections a year. There’s a strong consensus that the current CIF focuses on the right areas; but it isn’t clear how training will address the proposed increased emphasis on the curriculum.
Colin Forrest from the Policy Consortium
Indeed, the focus isn’t clear from the consultation: is it ‘English and maths as indicators of employability’, or ‘how effective the offer is in meeting local employer needs’? If both, then what are the priorities? How will training enhance inspectors’ knowledge of the complexities and nuances of individual local enterprise partnerships (Leps) to which providers increasingly look for funding?
If the inspection framework is a device for evaluation, then inspectors need to handle both quantitative and qualitative data reliably.
Training is necessary for using performance statistics, value-added and distance-travelled information. The validity of judgements can be enhanced through analysing qualitative data, too.
A missing question from the consultation in this field would be “How could providers help Ofsted improve its training of inspectors, without unduly increasing the burdens of such preparation?”
More practitioners as inspectors
Some of the harshest criticisms of inspection involve the credibility of highly-influential judgements from inspectors who may be far removed from the sector, the key matters under consideration (like teaching and learning, or the subjects, settings and courses involved), and from the genuine realities of provision.
One apparent solution lies in having a greater slice of inspection activity undertaken by current practitioners. It seems an obvious answer, with considerable benefits for all those involved.
However, the disadvantages are not as well appreciated. For instance, assumptions arising from being immersed in daily practice for one kind of provision can prove more difficult to put aside in a different inspection context than it is for someone who is otherwise more remote.
A good example might be the highly-contested territory of graded or ungraded lesson observations, where views are strongly-held on either side.
Being a practitioner doesn’t automatically guarantee the skill-set to be an inspector, too — although Ofsted’s recruitment processes can make such distinctions. Some might, however, argue that they haven’t always succeeded, to date.
Relating the practical demands of inspection schedules to inspector supply may still produce anomalies. And if an associate inspector works at a provider that drops to ‘Requires Improvement’ or ‘Inadequate’, then he/she is barred from undertaking inspections until that grade improves.
All this has a potential impact on the supply of inspectors and their deployment.
More sheer practicalities add to reservations around the good idea of engaging more current sector staff as inspectors. Ofsted’s training and accreditation regime, and its inspection and reporting processes, are all famously demanding — and rightly so. Yet so too is the day-job; and as most would agree, increasingly so.
Mike Cooper from the Policy Consortium
Whatever the potential advantages, providers may think twice about their staff becoming associate inspectors, and a commitment to release for a set minimum number of inspections.
This is particularly so when — as one rightly hopes with potential inspectors — they are high-performing ‘assets’. Similarly, even ambitious and able full-time staff may feel that taking on an inspection role would prove one extra burden too far.
Availability at short notice is a further key challenge: for Ofsted, for providers employing would-be part-time inspectors, and for those practitioners themselves.
Although Ofsted’s confidential scheduling is not normally short-notice itself, the realities suggest that there may well be a growing stream of urgent late calls for associate inspectors to fill gaps.
So, improving inspection through increasing current practitioners has clear attractions — but that involves significant risks, too.
Here, the consultation might have asked “How can Ofsted make better use of the sector practitioners’ current experience and ability in inspections, without unrealistic demands on the organisations and individuals involved?”
Will “better inspection” actually produce improved provision for all?
Sir Michael was quite right to highlight those three topics in his preamble. Why those issues did not feature significantly in the consultation is puzzling — not least because arguably, they matter at least as much as the structural discussion about a universal framework regarding the key, ultimate function of inspection: improvement.
Any change in inspection must aim at achieving more effective, speedy and reliable impact on learners’ experience and outcomes. The process also needs to become more transparent, adding to the potential for co-ownership, between providers and the inspectorate, of improvement.
Some time ago, the Skills Commission called for an evaluation of Ofsted’s role in improvement. Nothing in this consultation hints at reviewing this crucial — perhaps uncomfortable — aspect of its work. Yet it refers to the inspectorate ‘evolving’. Few, if any, students of Darwin would recognise that as an appropriate description of the proposed changes.
If the right consultation questions aren’t being asked now, then how and from where will improvement come?
Deadline approaches
Ofsted’s Better inspection for all consultation opened on October 9 and closes on Friday (December 5). Click here to take part.
